Semi-Full Transcript of the Brian Kaufman-Steven Cupps Lowell War

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Brian Kaufman wrote:

In the words of the great Toby Ziegler: "It isn't so much that you cheat, it's how brazenly bad you are at it."

Congrats to Andrea and Kia, despite the best efforts of Cupps and Co.

Flores-McLeod '08!

-Brian
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Rahul Prabhakar wrote:
Um, it's over and your candidate won. No reason to stick it to a fellow Lowellian, and a great guy at that.
From: Brian Kaufman

Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:45 PM

To: Lowell Open

Sorry Rahul, forgot to include your name in there too. My bad.

Slander is never ok, no matter who wins.
From: Steven Trent Cupps
Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:56 PM
To: Lowell Open
Brian,

I don't know who you are, but if you have something to say to me, I'd suggest saying it to my face.

I have a clear conscience that I fulfilled my duties as Election Commissioner to the best of my abilities without bias. Now, if you want to call me a cheater, then don't be fucking coward about it, and don't slander my name on my house list because you are ignorant about the facts and too stupid to find out about them.

I'm in Q-22 if you have any questions. Or any other place if you'd rather keep calling people names.

Put up or shut up.

-Steven
From: Mike Ragalie
Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:56 PM
To: Lowell Open
Hi Brian,

You're right that we should've gotten a fuller explanation out earlier. I was on duty last night and take full responsibility for that. As explanation, though not excuse, the EC's primary concern last night was to deal with the tons and tons of reports, petitions and random duties that come up in the last 12 hours of the election. Given that these could not wait, there just wasn't enough time to draft this longish explanation *and* take care of those other things.

On the other hand, we did give the Flores campaign permission to send out an email explaining "their side" of the story, and the Schwartz campaign -- not being under any penalty -- was obviously also free to email and speak to the press. Both campaigns were well represented in the story that appeared in the morning's Crimson.

Finally a relatively informative statement was sent out to this list last night and to anyone who emailed the EC account asking for clarification that explained what I just explained without the fine detail. I've appended it below.

-Mike

From: Brian Kaufman
Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:56 PM
To: Lowell Open

As I noted last night when this response was sent to the list, it was insufficient and vague. The fine detail is the important part, and allows the reader to objectively gauge the situation for him/herself. We didn't even get a yes or no from the EC about the correctness of the basic facts in the Flores campaign's email. How were we supposed to accurately judge the situation?

Anyway, it seems like now we've cleared up most of the facts. The most important thing is that this incident should be seen as a mistake to learn from for the next EC.

-Brian
From: Steven Trent Cupps
Date: Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Lowell-open] Dear Election Commission,
To: Lowell Open

Brian,

First, our press release explain what the penalties are, not the process by which we came to decide them. Otherwise everyday would be a two paragraph long explanation of the philosophical justification of charging Waite/Petri $7.50 every day they don't turn in their expense report.

Second, perhaps you should realize that you aren't the center of the universe. Sure you were demanding explanations. However, so were the other campaigns. I was spending most of two nights ago on the phone with each campaign trying to specify how much Flores/McLeod could say to the press and how much time we'd give them to wind the operations down. I was also dealing with disgruntled members on my own Commission who were semi-publiclly accusing me of corruption. This was why I was try to get enough sleep for a 7-hour job interview on Monday. That is why I did not drop everything b/c you were bitching and moaning on Lowell-open.

1. It's your Mom's job to comfort you when you are crying, not mine.
2. Your complaints really weren't my time to answer. You were free to email Mike or someother individual on the EC and they would've maybe found you important enough to talk to, though I doubt you are.

Third, I requested the signatures because there were irregularities on the Campaign Staff List they sent in. Some people had said publicly on Dems-Talk that they didn't know that they were on the campaign list. Other people privately expressed shock that they were on the list, which does not square away with a list of individuals who consented to be on the campaign. So, I invoked a rule that the candidates had known about after they had filed for office. In the past, all campaigns had been required to keep signatures on hand although they weren't always used. We thought that rule was too restrictive and told the candidates they don't have to keep the signatures on hand, but we could request them within 24-hours. The risk was there to take. The decision to ask for signatures proved correct b/c there were other irregularites (namely the presence of two individuals who had been working on the Schwartz campaign the entire time--one of whom had written to Andrea over a month earlier saying he didn't want to be on her campaign)

Fourth, we suspended the Flores/McLeod campaign because they forged a signature. Another individual signed for Sangu Delle who was in Ghana at the time. This wasn't specified and was written in a manner to pass it off as geniune signature (which is a forgery). Beyond it being a forgery, it was stupid. I had specified to Eric Hysen and Andrea Flores that if someone was out of the country they just need to say that and we wouldn't count it against them. Instead they chose to submit a false report for our investigation into them for submitting false reports. If that isn't an ethical violation, then you are Rod Blogojevich. We then voted to suspend them because part of our elections deal with honesty. We expect candidates to honestly report their finances and honestly deal with us, whether its in reporting other candidates' violations or helping us in their investigation of their alleged violations. If we ever catch a campaign lying to us (which is apparent in this case b/c people knew that the signature was not Sangus) then we have to act swiftly and severely.

Fifth, you still had no right to call me a cheater on this list. I would like an apology.

In sum we have learned:

1. I had more important things to do than listen to Brian Kaufman bitch and moan.
2. The EC requested signatures because there were irregularities in the staff report (more of which surfaced upon the request)
3. The EC suspended the campaign because instead of saying Sangu was out of the country which we said they could, they tried to pass a signature signed by someone else as real.
4. Brian Kaufman likes to cowardly accuse people on Lowell-Open instead of speaking to their faces.
5. Brian Kaufman doesn't actually put out when he's called out and continues to hide behind his computer (where he watches midget porn all day) blaming the EC for mismanaging its job because he was too lazy to check up on things himself.
6. Brian Kaufman should apologize to the EC for calling them corrupt, apologize to Lowell-Open for wasting their time, and apologize to Charles Darwin for proving his theory wrong by somehow being the incarnation of genes that should've been selected out eons ago.

If there are any other questions, please feel free to ask me. Though I'll be on a plane all day. (Brian, this means if I don't get back to you instanteously, you shouldn't cry and post on Lowell-Open.)

Sincerely,
Steven